List the Features defined on the business

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and 'Reads every page,' which are valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or response details, but for a simple listing operation the key behavioral traits are covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds only high-value context: feature types, read-only nature, access-gating relevance, and pagination behavior. Each sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the resource, its types, the read-only safety profile, pagination, and the relationship to related tools. It could name the explicit return shape more fully, but the essential information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single parameter visible_only is already documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter, but it does not need to because the schema already explains it adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('ProAbono Features of the account'), and clarifies that these are the business-owned definitions. It also distinguishes Features from customer-level Usages, referencing get_usages as the sibling tool, so the agent can tell them apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear conceptual context: Features are definitions used for access gating, and a customer's value for a Feature is a Usage read via get_usages. This implies when list_features is appropriate, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative selection criteria beyond the get_usages contrast.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.